What mFT lenses are used by professionals?

I ask this question because so many of us get caught up in pixel peeping instead of creating a review that quantifies/qualifies a lens for professional or commercial quality work which might range from magazine spreads, newspapers, senior photographs or weddings, for example. Yes, I have seen reviews where they do say that if you do not make prints over some given size that you will be pleased with the results, etc. But these reviews are rare and sometimes not helpful because they do not say why the lens might be good for x or y. If this has been beaten to death, then accept my apology. I did a search but came up with little that discussed this issue. Maybe poor search skills on my part.

Qualifier: I know many argue that few mFT lens qualify as professional but then again, I think back to my OM-1 and the limited lens (both in quantity and supposed quality) in my kit that created a number of sold photos...so to speak.

I'm a professional MFT shooter... albeit mostly all video, and a total lens hoarder. On professional projects, I've used Leica R's, Oly OM's, various Vivitars, a Tamron 4-12 C-mount lens, a Bigma, Nikon macros....

As to MFT glass, I get regular use from the Voigtlander 17.5 (some might say overuse), the P12-35, 14-140, PL25, P7-14. I have used the P20 and 100-300, but don't own those any longer for various reasons.

Coming from Hasselblad where there is zero choice, I was gobsmacked by the range of MFT lenses. I quickly discovered that most of them are pretty ordinary. My choice as a landscape shooter is probably a lot different to many others. I went for what appeared to be the best available. They are the Oly 12 (which will probably be replaced by the Schneider later) Pan 25, Oly 45, Oly 60, Oly 75 and the FT 50-200 via MMF-3. I don't print larger than A2 so am confident that all of them will be up to the task.

The other thing to consider in this equation is framing. Most of my Hasselblad shots get cropped to square so 40MP becomes around 25. That's not a luxury that I can afford on a 16MP sensor.

How does DxoMark test their lenses and are the mFT/FT lenses really as poorly performing as they seem to be based on their test scores? Seems like there is something amiss. Does Samyang really make better glass than what is offered by Olympus/Panasonic at the mFT level? Ok, I am hijacking my thread a little with this question but it is related.

How does DxoMark test their lenses and are the mFT/FT lenses really as poorly performing as they seem to be based on their test scores? Seems like there is something amiss. Does Samyang really make better glass than what is offered by Olympus/Panasonic at the mFT level? Ok, I am hijacking my thread a little with this question but it is related.

Click to expand...

Nothing is amiss. DXO regularizes all their results to a FF sensor, whether its a APS-C or μ43 lens being tested. This means that the μ43 resolution results are all essentially cut in half. This isn't bad testing. It's the only way to make scores comparable across multiple systems and multiple sensor sizes.

Despite this, a number of μ43 lenses stand up incredibly well, with the 7-14mm PL25, Oly 12, 45, for example, all getting relatively high scores despite their smaller sensor handicap.